2.2. Discussion or debate forum

The structure of the encyclopedia, referred to in Table 1 (section 2.1), highlights how discussion or debating forums are a fundamental pillar supporting the different voices (users, editors and administrators) involved in constructing Wikipedia. For this reason, amongst the previously mentioned “five pillars”, upon which all Wikipedia’s policies are based, we find one that refers to the way in which discussions should be held: seeking a “neutral point of view” (Los cinco pilares, 2020) which promotes the presentation of information in the least biased fashion, taking into account different points of view without giving primacy to opinions that are merely personal, stating explicitly that users should not “present one point of view as true or better”. However, this is difficult to achieve in discussions (Páginas de discusión, 2020), especially where debate concerns those articles which inspire the highest levels of controversy. Something that, in fact, is a source of recrimination amongst users:

(1) Hello user: 186.56.197.62. Wikipedia is not about showing things the way someone believes they ought to be but rather telling what the references say they are. If you think that “Castilian” is old fashioned, conservative or Castille-centered, this is of no importance to the article because it is not based on your opinions nor mine […] Regards. Lin linao¿dime? 14:24 8 mar 2016 (UTC) (Discussion: idioma español, 2020).

Wikipedia is not only an open-source encyclopedia, constructed through the participation of users who create articles, but also an environment within which to discuss those same encyclopedia entries and even, where necessary, modify them, reject and withdraw them.

In this sense, (dis)agreement naturally forms part of the dynamic established in these so called “discussions”, whose aim is “the communication between project contributors with the objective of addressing issues related to any theme about the encyclopedia”. Although the policies of Wikipedia insist that discussion pages are not social spaces and, above all, not forums for opinion, this good practice is not always followed. As a result, it is relatively common to find personal opinions and biased evaluations.

Within the Wikipedia environment there is a strong insistence on distinguishing discussion pages from discussion forums, that is, defining them as “spaces where readers are invited to discuss or share information” (Pano Alamán, 2008: 29).

(2) Hello. Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussion pages are not there to share opinions on the topic (“I think art is good”. “Julius Caesar should not have trusted Brutus”), but to talk about the changes that are needed in an article (“this reference might work for cave art”, “there are some spelling mistakes in the roman name for Brutus”). That’s why, your opinion about the name of the language is fine for other types of site, while on this page we are concerned with what is now: “Spanish” or “Castellano”. Regards. Lin linao¿dime? 00:44:15 ago 2016 (UTC) (Discussion: idioma español, 2020).

In fact, although prolonged personal conversations are discouraged on Wikipedia, a certain amount of private conversation is permitted. Thus, the main effort is aimed at separating these contributor discussions from those occurring on opinion forums where “the view expressed is not, in the beginning, directed at a particular topic and its text, it is “uploaded”, unfiltered, to the web as soon as it is posted.” (Vigara Tauste and Hernández Toribio, 2011: 355) Instead, conversations on Wikipedia attempt –often without success– to be more like forums where dialogue is directed by a purpose or theme, and that have some form of moderation with respect to content and theme (filters); in other words, those forums that